Rank: New forum user
|
We are a small (non CDM) construction company that is introducing a more structured system for pat testing our tools and equipment that are being used. What should we be doing about tools/equipment that are used by sub-contractors on the sites?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
We insisted that all subcontractors tools must be tested before being allowed on site.
Most contractors arranged their own testing, and provided copies of their register/records when they arrived on site.
A small minority opted for the principal contractor to conduct the test (using the on-site electrical contractors) and recharge for this service.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No such thing as "non-CDM" construction I'm afraid! The Regulations apply to ALL construction work.
Presumably you don't undertake the role of Principal Contractor on Notifiable Projects.
You should be making reasonable enquiries of your contractors at appointment, conducting a few "spot checks" and have supervisors look out for obvious defects.
What frequency of PAT are you applying to hand-held tools? HSG 107 has:
110 V – Before first use on site then 3-monthly
230 V mains – Before first use on site then monthly
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I agree with Ron. As a CDMC I do get fed up hearing from construction companies that CDM doesn't apply to them as the work they are doing does not require an F10 i.e. non-notifiable. After nearly 20 years of the CDM Regs I would have thought that the message would have got through to small Contractors by now that CDM applies to all construction work.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Along the same lines as everyone else so far but i would suggest if you have a regime make the sub contractors follow the seme requirement.
What if a sub contractor says he won't have his tools PA tested as it it not a requirement?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Provided it is a PC requirement/site rules & forms part of the contract with the sub-contractor, then it can be enforced.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I thouight I would never comment on PAT testing again as there is no legal requirement to undertake PAT testing. There is a legal requirement to ensure that any portable electrical kit is safe to use. That can be done by inspection on a regular basis and careful use of the kit, as opposed to simply throwing it into a van with no care of the kit at all. The testing is nothing more than a historic evidence that up to the time of the accident etc the kit was in date, although that date could be three or more years. I will say it again PAT testing is absolutely useless in proving the kit is safe to use.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kenty wrote:Provided it is a PC requirement/site rules & forms part of the contract with the sub-contractor, then it can be enforced.
Is it lawful for a PC to require something that is not enforced by law?
i.e. portable appliance testing may not be a contractor policy but pre use checks may be.
As a PC can I demand a contractor does not use 240 v equipment on site even though he has all the necessary equipment i.e. RCD etc.? and the equipment is used in accordance with all user instructions and HSE guidance?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Maybe the original poster of the thread meant non CDM as non notifiable to the HSE. You know under the 30days limit or under the 500 man hours before notifying to the HSE rather than just not working to CDM principles.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris
Absolutely lawful unless they contradict legislation - CDM empowers PCs to make rules as they think fit pursuant to Health Safety and Welfare
Rockybalboa
I think any contractor stating this needs to consider their level of organisational competence very clearly. It is very clear from the opening of CDM07 that ALL construction is included
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris
Bob is correct, the PC can make any rules they want as long as they are in writing. And as a contractor you have to obey. That's how they forced CSCS, CPCS and all the CITB training on the industry.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
"Maybe the original poster of the thread meant non CDM as non notifiable to the HSE. You know under the 30days limit or under the 500 man hours before notifying to the HSE rather than just not working to CDM principles. "
Rocky, don't come on here and start trying to be tolerant or understanding. If someone makes such a heinous error as the original poster, then they must be held up to account at the earliest opportunity. No room for error in this business. The letter of the law applies and must be spelt out to all of those ignorami that aren't part of our hallowed brotherhood. it's only a short step from a slip of the keyboard to mass fatalities.
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
30 days or 500 man-days, not hours.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.